Thursday, 30 April 2015

It should be a cause of national shame that in a country boasting 100 billionaires, more than one million people go to food banks. A situation that can hardly be said to be for the common good.

The proliferation of foodbanks is something that has really taken off over the past five years. Prior to the last election in April 2010, there were 54 foodbanks being attended by 41,000 people, today there are more than 1,000,000 people going to 400 plus foodbanks, according to the Trussell Trust which runs the network of foodbanks.

The main causes of people going to foodbanks are low pay and benefit sanctions, according to the Trussell Trust.

So what is needed is for a redistribution of wealth in our society. It is not only morally wrong for the polarization of wealth to continue in the present fashion, with a few rich people getting ever richer whilst the poor scrape by, seeking support from foodbanks. It will not be a safe environment for the billionaires in the long term either if they continue to accumulate wealth to the cost of the many.

What is needed is not more zero hours low paid contracts and foodbanks but a living wage for all, with minimum terms and conditions brought in across the board so that people cannot be undercut in what has been the relentless race to the bottom of recent years.

Stronger trade unions would also see more wealth flowing to those who produce the goods in the first place. These are minor steps but with others, such as higher taxes on those earning most, would see a more cohesive society created dedicated to the common good of all.

Things are
never dull at West Ham United. First, there were claims that the club broke EU
law and may have received state aid in relation to the Olympic Stadium. Then
the club announces it will slash admission prices when it enters the stadium
for 2016/17 season.

While the
last week has seen such developments, the ongoing drama in the background
concerns the future of the West Ham manager of the past four seasons Sam
Allardyce.

It has
been a subject never far from the headlines for almost the entire season.
Allardyce was offered a one year contract last summer, after the owners
appeared to um and err as to what the right course of action was for the club.
A number of other managers seemed to be sounded out but were not available or
willing to join West Ham.

In the
end, it was a case of better the devil you know, with Allardyce offered a new
contract, with the proviso he must play more attractive attacking football.
Allardyce agreed. The board and manager seemed to have a rapproachment, with a
crop of excellent players coming into the club.

The new
players gelled quickly and before West Ham knew it they were in the top four.
Expectations were raised but as with West Ham teams of old, they seemed to come
down with the Christmas decorations, securing just three wins since the turn of
the year.

The
crushing 4-0 FA cup defeat to West Brom was particularly hard for West Ham fans
to take, especially as owners and manager had talked up the possibility of it
being the club’s year to win the trophy. Co-owner David Sullivan was shaken
when he came face to face with angry fans after the game. Ever since then the
rumours about the future of Allardyce seem to have grown.

The
owners seemed happy with what Allardyce did up to Christmas but there have been
warning signs that all may not be sweetness and light between manager and
board. Maurio Zarate departed West Ham for QPR on loan, declaring that the
manager did not like him because Sullivan had brought him in. West Ham brought
in the Brazilian Nene, who has shown promise when given the chance but this has
been rare. Again it seems he is another that Allardyce does not really like.

Some of the
managers’ decisions - and over reliance on the seemingly permanently injured
Andy Carroll - seem to have grated with the owners. Many fans witnessing the
lacklustre performances of Stuart Downing and others since Christmas must have
wondered if Zarate or Nene could not have contributed something more.

An
ongoing gripe of fans is that Allardyce does not bring on home grown
youngsters. Even those like Diego Poyet, signed from Charlton last summer, do
not seem to be given the chance. Allardyce always seems to prefer the tried and
tested brought in from abroad or Bolton. The constant selection of the ageing Kevin Nolan also causes much rancour.

All that
said, the manager has done what he was asked to do last summer, playing an exciting
brand of attacking football and getting results -..at least until recently. He has
argued regularly that the team should be on 50 points if they had not squandered
so many leads in the last couple of minutes. He has put this in part down to
inexperience.

Few would
disagree with him when he says that with a season under their belt the new players
will do far better next year. Add four of five decent players of the calibre
provided last summer and West Ham could expect to climb the Premiership table
further.

Allardyce
is a man with a proven track record, he leaves clubs in a better state than when
he arrived and perhaps ominously those clubs often fair far worst after he has
gone. Bolton, Blackburn and Newcastle were all relegated not long after
Allardyce left as manager.

The West
Ham board though do seem to have made up their minds he is going this time. The
very public reports of managers such as David Moyes, Slaven Bilic, Roberto
Martinez, Gary Monk and Jurgen Klopp being sounded out are coming from
somewhere. The tactic seems strange because it is undermining the team’s
performance in the final few games of the season.

There is
ofcourse the possibility – sounded in some quarters – that Allardyce is on his
way anyway. Sunderland were said to be interested, prior to appointing Dick
Advocaat as caretaker manager. What is certain is that if Allardyce does leave
West Ham he won’t be out of work for long. A manager who can guarantee
Premiership football with top ten finishes on the menu will find work in many
places.

The West
Ham board are certainly playing a dangerous game. Allardyce could be relied
upon to take the club into the Olympic Stadium still in the Premiership. What a
disaster it would be if a new appointment got the club relegated just as they
were about to take up residence.

Many
expected that the club would stick with Allardyce for at least another season
or two, then maybe it would be time for a change. But change now seems on the
cards, who it will be is anyones guess. The demands are high, to play the West
Ham way and get results on a limited budget. Allardyce has fulfilled most of this
ask but it would seem has not done enough to warrant a new contract.

Thursday, 23 April 2015

A political slogan that does not seem to have
appeared during the election campaign is one declaring “Britain isn’t eating.”

Perhaps, a poster showing the hundreds of thousands
trooping into foodbanks in order to sustain themselves and their families
should be adorning bill boards across the land.

It should be a cause of national shame that in a
country that boasts more than 100 billionaires, more than one million people
require food aid. A situation that can hardly be said to be for the common
good.

Let’s remembers, the proliferation of foodbanks is
a relatively recent development. Five years ago, there were 54 foodbanks being
attended by 41,000 people, today there are 1,000,000 people going to 400
plus foodbanks.

These figures are according to the Trussell Trust,
which runs the national foodbank network.

The untold story is just how much food aid is being
provided beyond the Trussell Trust, largely by charitable bodies and churches.

A recent report by Leeds Diocese Justice and Peace
Commission found that more than 50% of its 88 parishes are providing food aid.
In Birmingham, there are 60 foodbanks operating out of churches. “Half of those
responding had provided food to the Trussell Trust foodbank but half as many
again give food through the St Vincent DePaul Society,” says the Leeds Diocesan
report.

The Trussell Trust
statistics show that 45% of food bank referrals are due to benefit delays and
changes, including sanctions and 22% cite low income as the main trigger for
the crisis.

So a major reason
why so many people are going to foodbanks is low pay and the way in which
benefits are being administered.

This should not be
surprising as much of the so called economic recovery in the UK has resulted
from the creation of low paid insecure jobs. These are typified by the 1.8
million employed on zero hours contracts and the fact that two out of five jobs
in recent years were defined as self employed. (Figures from HM
Revenue and Customs show that of the growing number of people who work for
themselves, 35 per cent earn less than £10,000 a year.)

What is needed is properly paid secure work.

The danger though is that as the welfare state is
dismantled amid the creation of a low pay economy, food aid becomes
institutionalised. This is what has happened in North America.

Foodbanks were introduced in Canada in the early
1980s in what was perceived as a tough economic time.

There are now 700 foodbanks in Canada, providing
help to 800,000 people. The number has increased by nearly 100,000 over the
past six years – as the country has come out of economic recession – sound
familiar.

The result in Canada has been that right to eat has
been effectively taken off the political agenda. It has become a matter for the
charitable sector. Foodbanks have become a service industry largely run by the
charitable sector. Supermarkets have joined in, exploiting an opportunity to
gain good PR by donating food.

This is not a path that the UK should want to
follow back to Dickensian times. Following its conference in February on food
aid, Leeds Diocese committed to hold would be MPs to account during the general
election campaign. They have been asking those who seek to represent them in
Parliament what they would do to address the question of why Britain is not
eating.

There are many MPS who are only too happy to be
associated with the warm charitable glow of foodbank charity, fewer ask why in
a country as rich as Britain, are so many struggling to feed themselves.

The failure to feed the people of Britain is an
appalling indictment of the past five years of government, it is something that
needs to be urgently addressed by whoever makes up the next administration.

Monday, 20 April 2015

Leyton and Wanstead Labour Party member Peter Davies went the extra mile to help out the electorate and ended up in hospital for his troubles.

Peter, 66, was out campaigning on a sunny afternoon in Wanstead, when he came across a distressed voter. They had locked themselves out of their house.

Peter, ever willing to help, sought to pull himself up on spike topped fence in order to get to a window.

In the process of helping the desperate member of the public, Peter slipped and impaled his arm on one of the spikes in the fence. With the help of the home owner he was seeking to help Peter bound up his arm.

He then called Leyton and Wanstead Party Chair Greg Eglin, who was out canvassing in a nearby road. Greg took Peter down to the local Whipps Cross hospital where he was admitted overnight.

On Monday he had an operation, as the spike had got into the tendons in his arm.

Never one to be put down for long Peter declared that he how understood “the effectiveness of some of those nasties at Bosworth battle field.”

"The staff at Whipps Cross were brilliant," said Peter.

Peter hopes soon to be fully recovered and back out canvassing for a Labour victory

Saturday, 18 April 2015

There has been a
growing debate in the run up to the general election on the validity of voting.

The debate was
sparked off by comedian Russell Brand, who famously declared: “It is not that I am
not voting out of apathy. I am not voting out of absolute indifference and
weariness and exhaustion from the lies, treachery and deceit of the political class
that has been going on for generations."

He suggested that
politicians were only interested in "serving the needs of
corporations" and that an administrative system based on the "massive
redistribution of wealth" should replace the status quo.

The Brand argument
chimes with those who declare that the parties are all the same and out of
touch with ordinary people.

There is also,
somewhat ironically, some common ground on the theme between Brand and his arch
nemesis UKIP leader Nigel Farage. The UKIP leader’s regular mantra is how the
political class are self-serving and out of touch with ordinary people.

The hypocrisy of the
view only becomes apparent when it is recognised that Farage is something of an
establishment insider himself, a former stockbroker, leading a party made up,
at least in part, of ex-Tory Mps and local councillors.

The ruling elites opposed
universal suffrage for centuries because it gave the mass of people some say
over their lives. “The right to vote was won by the struggle of decent ordinary
people,” said Jeremy Corbyn, Labour MP. “Democracy brought the Factories Act,
national insurance, council housing and the NHS. Don’t’ pass up the right
to vote. It is a crucial way of holding those in power to some form of
account and democracy includes that and the right to free speech and fair
trials.
We must defend it all.”

.

The vote though has been a
hard fought relatively recently won right.

A survey conducted in 1780 showed that
in England and Wales just 214,000 – had the vote - less than 3% of a population
of eight million. Large cities like Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester did not
have an MP between them, yet a “rotten borough” like Dunwich in Suffolk (with a
population of 32 in 1831) had two MPs.

Growing pressure for the vote saw the
three reform acts passed in 1832, 1867 and 1884. Revolutions taking place in
other European countries helped move the British government to act. However,
come turn of the century, it was still only male house owners who had the vote,
some way short of universal suffrage.

The struggle for the vote was a long
and hard fought one. There were notable losses of life along the way such as
the “Peterloo massacre” in Manchester in 1819, when the local yeomanry killed
11 people attending a meeting about voting.

Women were not in the voting picture at
all during the 19th century. It took the long running battles of the
suffragettes to gain the vote for women in 1918, then only for those over 30.
Real universal suffrage for both sexes only came about in 1928.

It is noticeable that the growing
suffrage also coincided with the growth of the Labour Party as a potential party
of government. The first Labour government being elected in 1924, the second in
1929.

The seeming disillusionment with voting
has come about over the past couple of decades. Voting levels in general
elections stayed in the 70 to 80% range pretty much from 1918 to 1997. There
were highs and lows. The highest turnout for a general election came in 1950
when Clement Attlee’s post war Labour government was re-elected on an 83.9%
turnout. The lowest turnout came in 1918, when just 57.2% of the electorate
turned out to vote in war torn Britain.

Turnouts though do seem to have been on
a steady decline since 1992, when there was a 77.7% turnout to return John
Major to Downing Street. Some 71% voted to secure Tony Blair’s landslide
victory in 1997. It was then that the disillusion seemed to set in with
turnouts of 59.4% (2001) and 61.4% (2005). There was a bit of recovery in 2010
with a 65.1% turnout.

A
survey by Survation in September 2013 took a detailed look at the attitudes of
non-voters. When asked, “What would you say were
your main reasons for not voting in the last the election?” over half of respondents expressed
disillusionment with contemporary politics.

Some 27
percent of those polled said they “don’t believe my vote will
make any difference,” while
25 percent said the “parties/candidates are all
the same.”

There is though also a distinct difference in
voting tendencies down the generations. So in the last election, just 44% of 18
to 24 year olds voted compared to 76% of over 65s.

This tendency of the elderly to vote, while the
young don’t has helped fuel the intergenerational argument in the media. The
Coalition government it is argued have recognised that older people are more
likely to vote, so they have responded accordingly, seeking to serve this group
of people.

On the other side, the tendency of youth not to
participate gives them less traction with the government, so they have been hit
harder by the likes of austerity based policies. There is some truth in this
view, which ofcourse offers a powerful argument for voting.

The question as to why so many people feel so
disillusioned with politicians and government no doubt has its roots in much of
what has gone on over recent years. It does not seem inconsequential that the
fall in voter turnouts at general elections between 1997 and 2005 coincided,
somewhat ironically, with a huge upsurge of popular political engagement.

This engagement centred around opposition to the
Iraq war and the extremes of capitalism. The response of those in government
was to ignore all of those protesters – especially the 2 million who came out
onto the streets to protest against the Iraq war in 2003.

There then followed the decade of disillusion with
public institutions generally. There was the financial crisis, police
corruption, the phone hacking scandal and most pertinently, the MPs expenses
scandal.

It has been these developments over the past couple
of decades, coupled with a coming together of the mainstream parties on the
basic neo-liberal economic agenda that has bred disillusionment with the
political system and voting.

There is another unhealthy development
on the right, which would benefit from general disillusion with voting and the
democratic process. The proponents of this authoritarian view favour good
governance over democracy. It is a market driven viewpoint.

The most obvious manifestation of this development
has been seen in Italy, where in the wake of the financial crisis the
democratically elected government was replaced by a technocratic alternative
that was to the liking of the markets. It was an obvious example of governance taking
precedence over democracy or perhaps more accurately of markets deciding what
sort of democracy they are prepared to permit.

The opposite side of this coin was seen
in Greece, where the people revolted against the austerity policies demanded by
the markets and elected the left wing party Syriza. This was a case of
democracy striking back. The people spoke and were not going to be forced into
poverty at the behest of the corporations and neo-liberal European governments.

How things work out in Greece will have
significance for the battle between democracy and governance. If the markets
don’t like what a democratically elected government does then they have huge
powers to destabilise that country, cutting off credit, destabilising
currencies etc. Equally, though in the final analysis if people’s votes don’t
count the only route left is revolt.

Developments in Italy and other countries post the
financial crisis of 2008, show that the calls for good governance , rather than
healthy democracy have grown louder. It is wise to remember at these times the
populist governance pledges of the fascists of the last century. This, in the
case of Mussolini in Italy, translated into a pledge to make the trains run on
time.

"Each time a person says they don't vote, the rich and powerful corporations celebrate. It means that they are that bit freer to do whatever they like because there is nobody to hold them to account. When people don't vote the worst elements take control," John McDonnell, Labour MP

The vote has been a right long fought for by
working people. It was not easy to get the ruling classes to part up with this
very basic right, now is not the time to be offering it up on the altar of
technocratic market based economic efficiency.

Tuesday, 14 April 2015

Creditors of Secured Energy Bonds remained none the wiser as to what had happened to their combined investment of £7.5 million in solar panels as a result of the recent creditors meeting.

The meeting was called by administrators Grant Thornton to principally elect a creditors committee of five people. Some 48 attended out of a total of 973 investors in Secured Energy Bonds.

Grant Thornton appeared unable to provide any information even as to where or how many solar panels had been fixed to school buildings before the bulk of the money seemed to be siphoned off to Secured Energy Bonds parent company CBD Energy in Australia. CBD Energy went into administration last November.

There was much anger directed at CBD Energy, Independent Portfolio Managers (IPM) and the Financial Conduct Authority.

Investors repeatedly claimed that this was a simple case of “corporate theft,” a number asking why the police had not been called in to investigate.

The total failure of the regulators in the form of the FCA and the security trustee, IPM, which was supposed to be safeguarding investors’ interests, formed another focus.

A number of investors had contacted the FCA, who took the attitude that it was nothing to do with them.

Investors were also frustrated that what little media coverage there has been of the SEB default seemed couched in the language that this was a risky investment and those making such a chance knew the dangers.

The reality, as more than one person testified, is that if this venture had been undertaken as sold, namely that solar panels would be installed on 22 schools with returns from the feed in tariffs etc then the 6.5% return over three years, was easily attainable.

The root cause of the problem is that the money has been siphoned off for other purposes, not being spent on the panels as originally stipulated.

There are some glimmers of hope for investors in the shape of recent court decisions, notably one in March in favour of the FCA on exotic investment schemes. Whether such decisions will help the SEB investors or simply illustrate that the FCA recognise that there is a problem in this area remains to be seen.

One investor nicely summarised the concerns as being corporate theft, the role of the security trustee and mis-selling.

Friday, 10 April 2015

Former Unison general secretary Rodney Bickerstaff was out on the stump, speaking at an east London fundraiser for Leyton and Wanstead Labour Mp John Cryer. Among the gems revealed was that Rodney had been conceived (not born) at the local Whipps Cross hospital back in 1945. Things though have gone downhill since then for Whipps, which was recently placed under special measures, following a Care Quality Commission report, highlighting bullying of staff. Clearly, there was a more relaxed attitude to matters of life and death back in 1945. Then dwelling on his birthright Rodney confirmed that both Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair had been right in their definition of him as being a bastard.

Wednesday, 8 April 2015

There was much media coverage of a letter from 100 business leaders to the Daily Telegraph on Wednesday praising the Coalition Government’s economic strategy over the past five years.

“We believe this Conservative-led Government has been good for business and has pursued policies which have supported investment and job creation,” they wrote, adding: “We believe a change in course … would put the recovery at risk.”
The letter was warmly received, particularly by the Prime Minister.
On the same day, the Centre for Macroeconomics, which brings together economists from Cambridge University, the LSE, University College London, the Bank of England and the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, polled experts on whether the "austerity policies of the coalition government have had a positive effect on aggregate economic activity (employment and GDP) in the UK.” Its result was a decisive no. Two-thirds of the 33 economists who responded disagreed with the proposition that austerity had been good for the UK.
The reaction from the Labour Party to the Telegraph letter was that the business leaders were wrong, and that while the economic approach may have benefited them, for the mass of ordinary people there has been little sign of recovery.
The 1.8 million people on zero-hours contracts have become a focus for the Government’s critics, who claim that while millions of jobs may have been created, they are insecure and low paid.
Critics from the Trade Unions critics point to the two in five of new jobs created over recent years being classified as self-employed work. Figures from HM Revenue and Customs show that of the growing number of people who work for themselves, 35 per cent earn less than £10,000 a year. Part-time jobs account for half of all jobs created between 2010 and 2012, despite many of the people concerned wanting full-time employment, according to the unions.
The low-paid nature of much of the work created has been reflected in the tax take, which has not gone up in the way that Government hoped with the economy recovering. Put crudely, people in low-paid jobs are often not earning enough to pay much tax. (One credit to the Coalition is that they have also raised the threshold so people have to be earning over £10,000 before they pay tax.)
Many business people, such as those who signed the letter, have been doing very nicely thank you with their pay and share portfolios benefiting as their companies profits have risen. They, though, often won’t be spending that money in the British market place, thus fuelling our economy, but instead investing it elsewhere.
It is the lopsided nature of the recovery that enables the Labour Party to argue that the mass of people are not feeling that life is getting any better.
In its most grotesque form, the polarisation of wealth that is resulting from this type of economic approach sees more than 100 billionaires living in a country where more than 900,000 go to food banks – a large number of them employed.
Business clearly has its role but it must also serve the common good. So the letter’s signatories might have more credibility across the board if their companies were beacons of good business practice, paying the living wage to all employees, ensuring the company paid full tax in the UK and encouraging trade union membership. These types of developments would lead to the more equal society resulting in the long term – so that when the economy recovers it benefits all, not just the few

Tuesday, 7 April 2015

Kevin Spacey's dramatic objections to mobile phones in the audience continue it would seem to fall on stony ground. During the first run of his one man show Darrow at the Old Vic, last year, he famously in character told a member of the audience to answer their mobile or he would.
The audience though it would seem have not been deterred, during the shows latest run, on Saturday, Spacey again had to intervene this time declaring: "turn that mobile phone off the one that's lighting up your face." The audience applauded, whilst no doubt hurriedly putting off their own mobile appliances

Wednesday, 1 April 2015

Sacked Unison rep Charlotte Monro is to be reinstated in her job as
moving and handling co-ordinator at Whipps Cross hospital.

Ms Monro was awaiting the judgement of an employment tribunal, over her
alleged unfair dismissal in October 2013, but Barts Health NHS Trust moved to
reinstate her before the judgement was delivered.

She had been sacked after what was alleged to be a breach of
confidentiality and undisclosed convictions going back over 30 years.

Ms Monro, though, maintained throughout that the real reason for her
dismissal was her role as a trade union rep, standing up for fellow workers and
the hospital itself. The move to dismiss her only began after she spoke to the
local council scrutiny committee.

"I am really happy to be returning to work with my team and the
rest of the staff at Whipps Cross Hospital, and Barts Health NHS Trust.
And I look forward to being able to contribute to the work I understand is now
under way, in response to the CQC report, to bring about improvement in our
hospital,” said Ms Monro. “Health staff must be able to speak out for their
patients and services without fear. They must be free to organise themselves in
trade unions and stand as representatives knowing that their rights as a union
rep will be respected, and that the role of an independent union campaigning
for the interests of the staff, their patients and services is also respected.
These were issues at the heart of my case. Its resolution will I hope
contribute to building a climate of openness and confidence so needed in our
health service.”

A statement from Barts Health NHS Trust confirmed that it had invited
Charlotte Monro to return to employment at Whipps Cross Hospital and that
Charlotte has accepted the invitation.

“Charlotte will be returning in the very near future, working three days a week
as a moving and handling co-ordinator, following a period of re-training,” said
the Trust statement. “The Trust and Charlotte have also reached confidential
terms of agreement in respect of her Employment Tribunal claim. The Trust has
valued the discussion of issues during the Employment Tribunal process

The Trust further confirmed that: “it will for all purposes in the
future, be removing reference from Charlotte’s employment record with the
Trust, the disciplinary matters which were the subject of an internal process
against Charlotte and which were then reviewed by the Employment Tribunal. This
will allow Charlotte and the Trust to move forward fully, from what we
acknowledge has been a difficult process for all concerned, above all for
Charlotte herself.”

The Trust confirmed that following the recent publication of the Care Quality
Commission inspection report into Whipps Cross Hospital, an Improvement Board
has been put in place to address all the concerns raised by the CQC. “Charlotte
Monro is an energetic and committed campaigner on patient care issues in the
NHS, and the Trust welcomes the contribution which Charlotte will undoubtedly
be able to make to the discussion about ensuring Whipps Cross’s future. Members
of the Trust’s Executive will be meeting with Charlotte, Unison Regional
Officer Derek Helyar, Chair of Staff Side at Whipps Cross, Valerie Phillips and
Chair of the Staff Partnership Forum, Mireille Braid, in the near future, for
an open and frank discussion about lessons to be learnt and Charlotte’s future
contribution,” said the Trust. “The Trust values Charlotte’s long professional
contribution over many years to standards of patient care and to patient and
staff safety.”

Ms Monro added: “It's vital that Whipps Cross becomes again a hospital
of choice for health staff to work in, where they can provide the best
standards of health care to our local population, and find a good future.

“I want to thank my union UNISON for its backing and support in taking
my case to tribunal, and to thank our highly committed legal team. I have been moved
and inspired by the support from colleagues, from health campaigners and fellow
trade unionists, and so many other people. It has held me up through some
pretty difficult times and brought home that the issues I faced have far wider
significance for people.

“Together we are standing up for what we believe in and this has
made all the difference. Let’s continue to do so for the future of our
NHS."* see morning star - 1/4/2015